Lynn D. Compton

The case involved parents suing the City of Los Angeles for the wrongful death of their son, alleging that city paramedics failed to provide medical assistance after he was shot, leading to his death. The trial court sustained the city's demurrer to the complaint, and the Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal. The court reasoned that, absent a special relationship, there is no general duty for individuals or emergency personnel to come to the aid of another, and the paramedics had not created the peril or induced reliance on a promise of assistance. It further noted that no statute imposed a mandatory duty to render aid on the paramedics.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned whether Pacific Employers Insurance Company (PEIC) was obligated to defend and indemnify the estate of Richard Rausch under a "claims made" professional liability policy that required both that claims be made against the insured and reported to PEIC during the policy period. After the insured's death, creditors' claims were made against the estate before the policy expired but were not reported to PEIC until after expiration due to the handling attorney's inaction; PEIC denied coverage, leading to litigation that included a malpractice claim against the attorney. The trial court denied PEIC's motion for summary judgment, applying a notice-prejudice requirement, but the appellate court granted a writ directing summary judgment for PEIC. The court held that the policy language was unambiguous in mandating reporting within the policy period, that the notice-prejudice rule did not apply to override the clear terms of this claims-made policy, and that the reporting requirement did not violate public policy or restrict the insured's freedom to contract.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

In People v. Thomas, the defendant was convicted by jury of multiple counts of robbery, kidnapping for robbery, forcible rape in concert, oral copulation in concert, and related offenses involving several victims over a three-week period, with various firearm enhancements found true, resulting in an aggregate sentence of 81.4 years to life. On appeal, the defendant challenged the trial court's decisions to discharge one juror for bias against police officers during deliberations, replace another due to employment hardship, accept partial verdicts from the partially reconstituted jury, and make further juror substitutions before final verdicts. The Court of Appeal held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in managing the jury issues, as the substitutions were necessary to avoid a miscarriage of justice and the partial verdicts were properly recorded, while directing the jury to begin deliberations anew each time. The court modified the sentence on certain counts to comply with Penal Code section 1170.1 regarding consecutive terms for non-violent felonies but otherwise affirmed the convictions.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned petitioners, including John Nugen, who sought ordinary and administrative mandamus plus declaratory relief to block the City of Monterey Park from approving a home for the aged in an R-2 residential zone. The trial court sustained a demurrer against Nugen alone, holding that he lacked standing because he had not exhausted administrative remedies before filing suit. On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed that ruling after accepting the complaint's allegations as true and finding that Nugen had attempted to appeal the Planning Commission's decisions on variances and the conditional use permit, but the City rejected those appeals as untimely or improper. The court concluded that the pleadings raised sufficient questions about the availability and timing of administrative remedies, including the effect of the developer's withdrawal and reactivation of its application, to allow the action to proceed.

propertyprocedure

In this case, plaintiffs sued their attorney for unauthorized use of funds they had placed in accounts as authorized signatory after immigrating from Germany. A jury awarded them compensatory and punitive damages, but the trial court granted a conditional new trial on excessive damages unless plaintiffs accepted reduced amounts via remittitur, which they did under protest; defendant then appealed the judgment but his appeal was dismissed for default. Plaintiffs cross-appealed the damages reduction and denial of prejudgment interest. The court dismissed the cross-appeal under the rule that a plaintiff who accepts a remittitur generally waives the right to appeal that issue, as defendant's dismissed appeal left plaintiffs with the benefits of the reduced judgment; however, it ordered defendant to pay plaintiffs' reasonable attorney fees incurred due to the procedural posture he created.

procedure

The case involved challenges by state legislators, constituents, and other elected officials to the constitutionality of Government Code section 89001, as amended by Proposition 73, which prohibits sending any newsletter or other mass mailing at public expense. The trial court initially ruled the statute unconstitutional but later upheld it in a related enforcement action. The Court of Appeal consolidated the cases and reversed the initial ruling while affirming the later one, concluding that the prohibition neither interferes with the Legislature's authority to govern its internal affairs nor burdens the exercise of any fundamental right. The opinion reviewed the history of publicly funded legislative newsletters, the savings projected from the ban, and arguments regarding internal legislative rules and speech interests but found no constitutional violation.

electionsfree speech

Plaintiffs Joseph and Hideko Tokeshi sued the State of California, County of Los Angeles, and county employees for damages after a county agricultural employee advised them to spray their raspberry crop with a pesticide, leading county officials to issue a cease-and-desist order due to excessive residue and preventing harvest and sale. Their third amended complaint also sought a declaration that Food and Agricultural Code section 12673 was unconstitutional. The trial court granted defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, ruling that governmental immunity under Government Code sections 818.8 and 822.2 barred the damages claim because the employee's statement was a misrepresentation and that section 815(a) defeated liability for omissions, while declining to issue declaratory relief due to lack of a present controversy. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the Tort Claims Act immunities applied to the alleged conduct and that plaintiffs failed to allege facts overcoming those protections or establishing a basis for declaratory judgment.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case arose after a motorcycle rider settled his personal injury and property damage claims against a driver insured by Safeco and then sued Safeco for refusing to pay an extra daily fee for collision damage waiver coverage on a rental car provided during the claim process. The plaintiff alleged that Safeco's refusal amounted to an unfair claims settlement practice under Insurance Code section 790.03(h) and unfair competition under Business and Professions Code section 17200, seeking damages and injunctive relief individually and on behalf of a class. The trial court denied Safeco's motion for summary judgment, which argued that the prior settlement and release barred the suit. The Court of Appeal held that the action was foreclosed by the Supreme Court's Moradi-Shalal decision abolishing private damages actions under the Insurance Code absent a prior judicial determination of the insured's liability, and that the Business and Professions Code could not be invoked to evade that bar, ordering the trial court to grant summary judgment to Safeco.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a personal injury lawsuit brought by a professional race car driver against a race organizer and the landowner after a drag racing crash left him severely injured; the plaintiff claimed the defendants were liable for failing to ensure proper rescue equipment and trained personnel, which allegedly worsened his injuries. The defendants sought summary judgment based on a broad release form the plaintiff had signed before the event, which waived claims for negligence and assumed risks of racing. The trial court denied the motions, but the Court of Appeal granted writs of mandate directing entry of summary judgment for the defendants. The court reasoned that the release was clear, unambiguous, and comprehensive in releasing all claims arising from the plaintiff's participation, without limitation to only inherent risks of racing.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved defendants charged with constructive possession of cocaine after police entered their home on a traffic warrant, observed drugs in plain view, and conducted a consent search that uncovered additional narcotics. At the preliminary hearing, defense counsel sought disclosure of a confidential informant's identity, leading the magistrate to hold an in camera hearing based solely on the arresting officer's testimony, after which the magistrate ruled against disclosure. The superior court granted the defendants' Penal Code section 995 motions to set aside the information, concluding that the informant's personal appearance was required at the in camera proceeding. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Evidence Code section 1042(d) permits an in camera hearing without mandating the informant's presence and that the magistrate's findings were supported by the evidence presented.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Gary Dana Trotman, who was charged with gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and related Vehicle Code violations after a fatal two-car collision. Following denial of his motions to suppress a blood sample and set aside the information, he pleaded no contest to simple vehicular manslaughter and was sentenced to two years in prison. The sole issue on appeal was the admissibility of the warrantless blood test taken at the hospital without his consent or a formal arrest. The court affirmed, concluding that the Truth-in-Evidence provision of Proposition 8 abrogated the prior state-law requirement of an arrest before a blood draw and that exigent circumstances plus probable cause independently justified the seizure.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a juvenile petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 alleging that minor Trinidad V. had possessed cocaine, which was discovered in his pocket during booking following his warrantless arrest for vandalism by spray-painting graffiti. The trial court suppressed the cocaine evidence after a hearing and dismissed the petition, but the Court of Appeal reversed. The appellate court determined that the arrest was lawful because the deputy, based on his experience with juvenile gangs, had reasonable cause to suspect the minor's guilt from observations including matching gang symbols and names at the scene and the minor's statements admitting his gang moniker and offering to go to jail in place of his brother. The court explained that the facts supported a strong suspicion sufficient for arrest, even without establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt or expert handwriting analysis, making the booking search valid.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a post-dissolution dispute over child support arrears in the marriage of D. Michael Trainotti and Roberta J. Trainotti. After their 1984 divorce, the father was ordered to pay $450 monthly for their son, but the child began living with the father in 1987 with the mother's agreement, leading the father to stop payments; the mother later sought to collect $4,500 in arrears. The trial court ordered payment of the full amount, concluding it lacked jurisdiction to offset or discharge the accrued support under Civil Code section 4700. The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, reasoning that support orders are exercises of equitable power allowing the court to consider whether the father had satisfied the obligation by providing a home for the child, without constituting retroactive modification.

family law

The case involved plaintiff Louise Chevlin, a student in the Los Angeles Community College District's nuclear medicine technology program, who was removed from her paid clinical internship at a Veterans Administration hospital and later terminated from the program after reporting misplaced radioactive materials and other workplace issues. Chevlin sued the District for negligence, breach of contract, fraudulent concealment, and violations of her civil rights under 42 U.S.C. sections 1983 and 1985, alleging the District failed to provide required supervision and due process. The trial court sustained the District's demurrer without leave to amend, and the Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal. The court held that the claims amounted to barred educational negligence under Peter W. v. San Francisco Unified School District, that Government Code section 818.8 immunized the public entity from misrepresentation or concealment claims, and that the due process issues had already been resolved against her in an unappealed mandamus proceeding.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

In Lutz v. De Laurentiis, the plaintiffs (the Lutz family and their assignees) sued film producers and distributors over two movies titled Amityville II: The Possession and Amityville 3-D, alleging that the titles, promotional references to the original Amityville Horror story and the Lutzes, and implied connection to their experiences misled the public into believing the films were authorized sequels. This diluted the commercial value of the plaintiffs' reserved rights to produce and publicize their own sequels about post-Amityville events. The trial court had sustained demurrers without leave to amend on many counts and granted judgment on the pleadings on the rest, dismissing the action. The Court of Appeal reversed as to the unfair competition claim, holding that the plaintiffs had adequately pleaded facts showing the title had acquired secondary meaning associating it with their story and that the defendants' conduct could constitute passing off or misappropriation under California law, while affirming dismissal of other counts. The matter was remanded for further proceedings.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

In Barndt v. County of Los Angeles, a physician sued the county for specific performance of a 1982 settlement agreement that promised him a permanent cardiology position at a county medical center after prior employment disputes; the county had instead assigned him to hypertension and a civil service commission later found no discrimination. The trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend, holding the plaintiff collaterally estopped by findings in earlier unsuccessful writ of mandate proceedings that included a determination of laches. The Court of Appeal affirmed, reasoning that prior judicial rulings on laches and lack of jurisdiction barred relitigation, that specific performance is unavailable as a remedy for personal-service employment contracts, and that declaratory relief would serve no purpose without an enforceable remedy. The court noted the plaintiff had abandoned a damages claim after failing to meet government claims-filing requirements.

labor & employmentprocedure

The Joint Council of Interns and Residents challenged a Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors contract with the University of Southern California under which USC would assume direct employment of medical interns and residents at county facilities starting in 1987, arguing that the Board's finding of greater feasibility violated county charter rules on contracting for personal services. The trial court denied the union's petition for a writ of mandate after applying a limited standard of review, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The court held that the Board's determination was a legislative act involving policy choices about cost-effectiveness and service delivery rather than an adjudicatory decision on individual rights or disputed facts. Accordingly, judicial review was properly limited to whether the action was arbitrary or capricious, without requiring an independent assessment of whether substantial evidence supported the findings.

labor & employmenthealthcareprocedure

This case involved parents who filed a claim under the California Tort Claims Act against Los Angeles County for alleged medical malpractice at a county hospital that caused their child's permanent brain damage at birth in 1985. The County rejected the claim as untimely because more than 100 days had passed since the birth, and the trial court denied the parents' petition for relief from the claim-filing requirement after resolving a factual dispute over when the injury was discovered. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of relief under Government Code section 946.6, holding that the proceedings were not the proper forum to resolve the timeliness issue when the claimants maintained they had actually complied with the 100-day filing deadline based on delayed discovery. The court reasoned that, consistent with prior precedent, factual disputes about claim timeliness and the statute of limitations should be decided in a subsequent lawsuit rather than in the relief petition, allowing the parents to file a complaint alleging compliance.

proceduretorts & liability

The case was a premises liability personal injury action in which plaintiff Edwards sued defendant California Sports, Inc., operator of The Forum arena, after he fell from a railing while intoxicated and climbing it post-game, resulting in severe head injuries. A jury found defendant 27% at fault and awarded $540,000 in damages out of $2 million total, but the appellate court reversed the judgment and directed entry of judgment for defendant. The court held that defendant breached no duty of care because the fence met building codes, was adequate to prevent falls from ordinary slips or bumps, and posed an obvious danger that plaintiff voluntarily encountered by climbing it. Core reasoning was that landowners must use reasonable care but are not insurers against self-inflicted injuries from obvious perils or plaintiffs' own negligence, so no apportionment of fault was warranted absent proof of defendant's negligence.

torts & liability

The case involved plaintiff Oanh Thi Pham seeking a declaratory judgment that she was entitled to uninsured motorist benefits under an Allstate policy after a rock fell from an unidentified dump truck, bounced on the highway, penetrated her windshield, and caused her injuries. The trial court ruled in her favor, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The court held that Insurance Code section 11580.2's physical contact requirement for hit-and-run coverage was satisfied because the rock originated from the unknown vehicle, creating an uninterrupted chain of contact. It reasoned that the statute's contact rule, intended to deter fraudulent phantom-vehicle claims, encompasses objects carried by or detaching from the vehicle, consistent with the remedial purpose of broadening protection for injured drivers.

business & regulatorytorts & liability